Why "NO" on Prop 427 & 428 (Daybreak)? Get the Facts!
The Fountain Hills Planning & Zoning Commission overwhelmingly REJECTED Daybreak.
- Mayor Dickey and Councilman Spelich also voted AGAINST it.
- Both have gone on record and remain STILL opposed to Daybreak.
- Get the Facts!
Facts to Consider
- The projected Financial returns to the Town only minimally improve the financial straits for Fountain Hills.
- Developers could legally grade the hillside to street level but not begin building for 10 years if they win this election.
- Developers failed to meet FH parking space requirements for the age-restricted apartments. There are <1 parking space/apartment allotted in the 600 foot apartment building.
- There is no ability to walk to supermarkets, the community center, the library, parks or restaurants.
- Park Place has 170 rental apartments, yet to be built upon the scraped off land, downtown and 147 new rentals are to be built behind Bashas'. This totals 317 new rentals approved but not yet built.
- If Daybreak passes, this is what you will get: 400 rental apartments, consisting of 18 separate buildings, 10 garages and 1 clubhouse crammed onto 23 acres of a ~60 acre parcel, less than 30 feet off Palisades.
- Get The Facts!
Fountain Hills CITIZENs Unite
- Nearly 1800 registered voters signed a petition to put Daybreak to a vote
- On May 19, the referendum will include Prop 427 and 428.
- VOTE "NO" on BOTH PROPOSITIONS.
- This is a mail in Ballot. Ballots will be mailed to FH registered voters on April 22
- MAIL IN BY MAY 12 to ensure your vote counts
The Planning & Zoning staff analysis found the project was inconsistent with the General Plan because it does not preserve steeply sloping hillsides, washes and contiguous open space
- The grading of the site will result in 30 feet of cut and 57 feet of fill, turning the steep hillside into a flat pad
- Land which has been dedicated to open space will be disturbed and, in some areas, subject to grading/fill, in violation of the Town’s General Plan objective to preserve those areas
- The project takes 11.3 acres out of the dedicated preservation area and instead makes it part of the development.
- Get the Facts!https://drive.google.com/open?id=1B2inPUMjRXrFCrWKxusD9RE0g3a0uZYn
The General Plan requires multi-family projects to be of “exceptional design.”
- The Project, by contrast proposes a “flat" massing that is boxy and lacks details".
- A 2.7 acre expanse of asphalt for parking, and a building that is 600 feet long and 40 feet tall, making the project inconsistent with the scale and character of the community
- It FAILS the test for “exceptional design”
- Get the Facts!
On July 11, 2019, FH Development Services Director John Wesley wrote to the Developer telling them he intended to recommend DENIAL of the General Plan Amendment and the PAD Zoning.
- By July 25, without significant changes to the application, John Wesley changed his recommendation from DENIAL to NEUTRAL.
- Get the Facts! https://drive.google.com/file/d/1j5W8ArUS4r0ewnyAmEovMf3T2Q7t38Yj/view?usp=sharing
Why "NO" to Prop 427 & 428 (Daybreak)?
The Project’s traffic analysis shows that it will increase traffic on Palisades by almost 20%, and 40% during the AM peak hours
- Given the Project’s driveway location near a blind curve on Palisades, this traffic increase will result in dangerous conditions.
- Get The Facts! See page 41 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pW8jgEsdoUbraNAnjdCuFqhwEWaov5n7/view
What are LAWS REQUIRING CONSISTENCY BETWEEN GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING?
- Fountain Hills Zoning Ordinance Section 23.04 provides: Densities and intensity permitted in the PAD zoning designation shall be determined by the Town Council, in its sole discretion, providing such densities and intensity shall be consistent with the Town of Fountain Hills General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan.”
- Arizona Revised Statutes Section 9-462.01 provides: “All zoning and rezoning ordinances or regulations adopted under this articles shall be consistent with and conform to the adopted general plan of the municipality. A rezoning ordinance conforms with the land use element of the general plan if it proposes land uses, densities or intensities within the range of identified uses, densities and intensities of the land use element of the general plan.”
- Get The Facts!
As approved, the General Plan allows 230 units on the 60 acre project site, while the zoning PAD allows 400 units on the exact same 60 acres site.
- The zoning PAD is obviously, therefore, not consistent with the General Plan and, by law, should not have been approved.
- Both State and local laws require that zoning be consistent with the General Plan.
- Get The Facts! https://drive.google.com/open?id=1h1ltbvcLvWk6gSwbuiXnKz9WCQyTYA6S
Please Donate to help defeat Daybreak by Check or PayPal.
Make Check payable to: "Smart Development Fountain Hills PAC" and send to Steve Messel, 15303 E Redrock Dr, Fountain Hills, AZ 85268. Please note AZ law requires the following information to accompany ALL donations: name, address, occupation and employer (even if retired). For PayPay donations we will reach out to you via email to collect the additional information. Thank You!
